All the Perl that's Practical to Extract and Report

Navigation

The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Without JavaScript enabled, you might want to
use the classic discussion system instead. If you login, you can remember this preference.

Please Log In to Continue

There's no evidence that universal health care is a good thing; indeed, there is more hard evidence against it than for it, as it tends to screw an economy, hurt jobs, decrease the average quality of care, and thereby lower the overall national "well being."

Where is your hard evidence to support the above statement? In the absence of such evidence I guess you are stating an opinion as well.

The reports I have seen indicate that the United States spends more as a percent of GDP than Canada and yet leav

Yes, more is spent here, but mostly in private dollars, which helps the economy as a whole (as well as provides a greater quality of care, which you somewhat concede to). I am not sure how a high percentage of GDP makes it bad for the economy, unless it is the government spending all that money, which it isn't.

I am not saying the U.S. is necessarily better than Canada, although I prefer our system. I am talking about broader principles, e.g. private vs. public dollars and the impact on the economy. Our

Yes, more is spent here, but mostly in private dollars, which helps the economy as a whole (as well as provides a greater quality of care, which you somewhat concede to). I am not sure how a high percentage of GDP makes it bad for the economy, unless it is the government spending all that money, which it isn't.

Perhaps I am being slow, but a dollar spent is a dollar spent is it not? What does it matter if it is a private citizen versus

Perhaps I am being slow, but a dollar spent is a dollar spent is it not? What does it matter if it is a private citizen versus a government agency that is doing the spending?

There's several problems. First, if the government pays for it, *I* am paying for it, whether I want to or not, which hurts the market and drags on the economy. Second, the government always sets some sort of price controls, whether explicit or implicit, which hurts the market. Third, the government is usually less efficient, not just in how it handles the money, but in how easily it can react to changes in the market. There's more, but you get the idea.

Also, note that Americans would not stand for decreased service quality, if the government took over. And given that, there's no reason to think that costs would go down under a more socialized plan, let alone a single-payer one.

Along with spending a higher percentage of GDP the US system also 'loses' more of that money to the beauracracy with a lower percentage actually being spent on the patients

Which would happen at least as much if the government did it, of course. Regardless, money "lost" to the bureaucracy is not lost when it happens in the marketplace. It goes into someone's pocket, and in the worst case, it puts a drag on one company's efficiency and thereby provides an opportunity for another.

The free market works.

perhaps it is my Canadian passive-aggressive tendencies coming out but I would sum up the American healthcare system as such: It is better for those that can afford it.

Yes. Is it so wrong to not want *my* quality of service decreased? I am not saying we should not help those in need, I am saying we can do practical things to accomplish that without dragging down everyone else.

In the end, the best health care system would be one that provides the best possible care to all that require it, regardless of economic standing.

I can't agree. I can't see how it is "best" to -- to pick an extreme example, but you speak in absolutes, so it is fitting -- spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to do a quadruple heart bypass for a deathly overweight 90-year-old homeless person. If a deathly overweight 90-year-old person has the money to pay for that themselves, fine, but it is insane to posit that we should spend all that public money on someone in that condition.

I am not saying the US system is great. It is broken in major ways. I just don't want the fix to go in the direction of MORE socialization, but LESS overall, with increased safeguards for the most needy, and practical ways to keep costs down for everyone else by relying on the free market as much as possible, with regulation only when necessary.

I can't agree. I can't see how it is "best" to -- to pick an extreme example, but you speak in absolutes, so it is fitting -- spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to do a quadruple heart bypass for a deathly overweight 90-year-old homeless person. If a deathly overweight 90-year-old person has the money to pay for that themselves, fine, but it is insane to posit that we should spend all that public money on someone in that condition.

Rubbish. I took what you said to its logical conclusion. You can feel free to amend what you said, but don't attack *me* for taking your words at face value.

Here is what I said:

In the end, the best health care system would be one that provides the best possible care to all that require it, regardless of economic standing. I think neither the Canadian or the American system would pass that simple test and perhaps no single system could. Tradeoffs are necessary.

No. You explain how "best possible care to all that require it" is *not* absolute.

In the end, the best health care system would be one that provides the best possible care to all that require it, regardless of economic standing. I think neither the Canadian or the American system would pass that simple test and perhaps no single system could. Tradeoffs are necessary.

The bottom line is that I am still waiting for some hard evidence proving that universal health care screws the economy, hurts jobs, decreases the average quality of care, and the overall national "well being."

The bottom line is that I am still waiting for some hard evidence proving that universal health care screws the economy, hurts jobs, decreases the average quality of care, and the overall national "well being."

There are problems with the Canadian system, including wait times and a lack of specialized equipment.

Once again your definition of hard evidence is interesting if you include a statement of opinion from someone who would readily admit to not being fully informed. My opinion is based on report